Comparison of removed dentin thickness with hand and rotary instruments

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the amount of dentine removed after canal preparation using stainless steel (SS) hand instruments or rotary ProFile instruments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six extracted human teeth with root canal curvatures less than 30º were embedded in clear polyester resin. The roots were cut horizontally at apical 2, 4 and 7 mm. Dentin thickness was measured at each section and the sections were accurately reassembled using a muffle. Root canals were randomly prepared by SS hand instruments or rotary ProFile instruments. Root sections were again separated, and the remaining dentin thickness was measured. Mann-Whitney U and t tests were performed for analytic comparison of the results. RESULTS: The thickness of removed dentin was significantly different between the two used methods (P<0.05). Significantly greater amounts of dentin was removed mesially in all sections in hand instrumentation group (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: ProFile rotary instrumentation prepares root canals with a greater conservation of tooth structure.

[1]  A. Cavalcanti,et al.  Effect of remaining dentine structure and thermal-mechanical aging on the fracture resistance of bovine roots with different post and core systems. , 2008, International endodontic journal.

[2]  I. Balčiūnienė,et al.  A scanning electron microscopic study of debris and smear layer remaining following use of AET instruments and K-flexofiles. , 2006, Stomatologija.

[3]  H. Dh,et al.  Quality guidelines for endodontic treatment: consensus report of the European Society of Endodontology. , 2006, International endodontic journal.

[4]  O. Zmener,et al.  Effectiveness in cleaning oval-shaped root canals using Anatomic Endodontic Technology, ProFile and manual instrumentation: a scanning electron microscopic study. , 2005, International endodontic journal.

[5]  J. Palamara,et al.  A comparison of the effects of two canal preparation techniques on root fracture susceptibility and fracture pattern. , 2005, Journal of endodontics.

[6]  J. Palamara,et al.  Effect of root canal size and external root surface morphology on fracture susceptibility and pattern: a finite element analysis. , 2005, Journal of endodontics.

[7]  S. Dorn,et al.  The impact of post space preparation with Gates-Glidden drills on residual dentin thickness in distal roots of mandibular molars. , 2004, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[8]  R. Weiger.  European Society of Endodontology , 2004 .

[9]  A. Katz,et al.  A combined radiographic and computerized scanning method to evaluate remaining dentine thickness in mandibular incisors after various intracanal procedures. , 2003, International endodontic journal.

[10]  Z. Fuss,et al.  Residual dentin thickness in mesial roots of mandibular molars prepared with Lightspeed rotary instruments and Gates-Glidden reamers. , 2003, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[11]  H H Messer,et al.  A comparison of stainless steel hand and rotary nickel-titanium instrumentation using a silicone impression technique. , 2002, Australian dental journal.

[12]  Y. Garip,et al.  The use of computed tomography when comparing nickel-titanium and stainless steel files during preparation of simulated curved canals. , 2001, International endodontic journal.

[13]  D C Brown,et al.  A reconstructed computerized tomographic comparison of Ni-Ti rotary GT files versus traditional instruments in canals shaped by novice operators. , 2001, International endodontic journal.

[14]  B. Y. Cha,et al.  Shaping ability of three ProFile rotary instrumentation techniques in simulated resin root canals. , 2000, Journal of endodontics.

[15]  A. Katz,et al.  Furcation groove of buccal root of maxillary first premolars--a morphometric study. , 2000, Journal of endodontics.

[16]  A Tamse,et al.  A new muffle model system to study root canal morphology and instrumentation techniques. , 1998, Journal of endodontics.

[17]  A. Tamse,et al.  Residual dentin thickness in mandibular premolars prepared with hand and rotatory instruments. , 1998, Journal of endodontics.

[18]  M Hülsmann,et al.  Root canal cleanliness after preparation with different endodontic handpieces and hand instruments: a comparative SEM investigation. , 1997, Journal of endodontics.

[19]  S B Dove,et al.  A comparison of root canal preparations using Ni-Ti hand, Ni-Ti engine-driven, and K-Flex endodontic instruments. , 1995, Journal of endodontics.

[20]  J. Gutmann.  The dentin-root complex: anatomic and biologic considerations in restoring endodontically treated teeth. , 1992, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[21]  C M Bramante,et al.  A methodology for evaluation of root canal instrumentation. , 1987, Journal of endodontics.

[22]  C. Stock,et al.  The risk of perforation in the curved canal: anticurvature filing compared with the stepback technique. , 1987, International endodontic journal.

[23]  A. L. Frank,et al.  The anticurvature filing method to prepare the curved root canal. , 1980, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[24]  A. Caputo,et al.  Pins and posts--why, when and how. , 1976, Dental clinics of North America.

[25]  S. Mizrahi,et al.  A scanning electron microscopic study of the efficacy of various endodontic instruments. , 1975, Journal of endodontics.

[26]  H Schilder,et al.  Cleaning and shaping the root canal. , 1974, Dental clinics of North America.

[27]  S. W. Schneider,et al.  A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. , 1971, Oral surgery, oral medicine, and oral pathology.